Live data from Hacker News

Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

eff.org

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#41

The argument for political dissidents in nonfree countries is valid but old (in many cases the regimes will catch the dissidents regardless). The value of pseudo-identity is not just anonymity, but the ability to have multiple identities. We shouldn't be forced to use one identity for the various areas of the internet, just like the comments and actions i make on HN are totally unrelated to my facebook community or m…

Your comment re: multiple identities is exactly right. I don't understand why people seem so surprised to hear this sentiment coming from her, though - Mark is already on record on that topic:

“Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Facebook's policy from the top down seems to be that you are only ever entitled to one identity - period. If you were foolish enough to be born into an environment where expressing yourself solely through that one identity can get you in to trouble and/or killed, that's your own fault.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#42
post #5

In these sort of arguments I don't really understand why civility in and of itself is valued. It only makes sense in a social situation that affords civility. For that you can make "giving up anonymity" opt-in , rather than opt-out (which is mostly what is being done a lot, from forums that force you to use FB accounts to tor users in various countries who have no easy way to opt-out of foregoing anonymity). It is ra…

Civility is really important if you want to have any meaningful exchange of opinions. However it is idiotic to claim that the only way to afford it is via real identity. I imagine an adaptible text algorithm that removes profanities and hate speech would even make youtube comments useful.

I'm willing to bet that's AI-Complete.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#43
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civility is really important if you want to have any meaningful exchange of opinions. However it is idiotic to claim that the only way to afford it is via real identity. I imagine an adaptible text algorithm that removes profanities and hate speech would even make youtube comments useful.

I'm willing to bet that's AI-Complete.

i think even a modest attempt would work; besides it's usually the newcomers who troll in a community

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>online anonymity itself also creates real-world consequences, such as character assassinations, harassment, and downright internet crime. anonymity itself doesn't create crime or harassment. Like in the real life, it only makes it easier to perpetrate one. With this being said, why wouldn't we all wear GPS and RFID enabled collars at all times with our name, identification number and scan barcode being promptly visi…

> why wouldn't we all wear GPS and RFID enabled collars at all times with our name, identification number and scan barcode being promptly visible on the collar Like a smart phone?

A smart phone is not needed.

FBI can turn on a phone's microphone: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

A German politician got a telecom company to hand over phone location data: http://blogs.dw-world.de/spectrum/?p=907

Pretty animation of phone tracking: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#46

Who the fuck cares about Randi Zuckerberg. Without Mark would we give a shit what she says?

That was my thought as well. I feel more comfortable taking medical advice from Jenny McCarthy. As far as I can tell her only qualification is being the former marketing director of Facebook. Her opinion on this subject is not relevant.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#47
Computer security is and will continue to be so imperfect that it will remain extremely difficult for anyone to mandate real identity use on the broader internet. All the anti-censorship tools would work just as well against western governments and websites as they do against the middle east and asia. Wifi is ubiquitous and very hard to manage. People's identities are trivial to steal and would be a cinch to use if no money was changing hands. Hacking the client, password reuse, selling dead accounts, proxies and vpns from locations that don't require name use, off shore hosting.

Sure, many people wouldn't bother and just adapt. But clearly groups like Anon, 4chan, most of irc, #antisec and numerous others would avoid it all and go elsewhere. It's often repeated that the kids will hang around until something new is cooler. I imagine AnonymouSabu could do a pretty good job of jump starting a new social network all by himself if he got banned from twitter. Even if you have nothing to hide you'd probably head there if your friends are there.

Second is how practical PKI with identity management is on a nation scale. To make a serious run at 100% real identity all the time you probably need to go full public/private key, smartcard+pin, IP packet tagging for egress outside the nation's great firewall and so on. With less than all that it'd simply be too easy to avoid.The problem is, PKI with identity management is a really hard problem to do well. One of the largest PKI deployments in the world is the DOD. They wrangled for years on deployment, already have strict security protocols and a managed environment. None the less they had to shut the entire system down not that long ago and revalidate every identity because they had so many bad cards in active use.

Sure, the government probably isn't the best at that, hence why the Obama ID plan looks to open standards and a federated group of ID providers - presumably firms like Google, Facebook, Bank of America, Verisign and Verizon. The problem is that many of these firms are ill equipped to manage something you depend on for all aspects of your life, day in day out. I've edited out a bunch of specific examples, but suffice to say few or none of them have all the pieces needed to manage such an important, hands on and support reliant business.

On paper it all seems achievable, but in practice it seems highly unlikely to me that you'll see universal required ID. Facebook would like to see it for any number of business reasons, but when it comes down to it it probably matters little what they think.

All that because somebody related to someone who figured out how to help college students hook up thinks people might be a bit nicer in blog comments? Yah right.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#48
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymity is about much more than people trolling each other. Anonymity is what allows a guy to mug you and then disappear into the wide world without consequences. It's what allows a child rapist to buy a nice house next to an elementary school. It's what allows a known terrorist to board a plane and crash it into a building. I don't deny there are many great benefits to anonymity, especially on the internet, but pe…

I don't even know where to begin with telling you everything that is wrong with all that you just said. Instead of initially refuting them one-by-one, which only creates an argument on your terms, let me set the tone of an argument on my terms. You present a strawman's argument instead of valid points worthy of serious debate in regards to the original statement. You make a weak, passing reference to anonymity being…

Let me clarify.

1) Muggings - If you get mugged by someone you know, it's very easy to find them and punish them. It's no coincidence that muggings tend to happen in big cities where the chances of a mugger attacking someone they know is very low (anonymity).

2) Sexual predator - If a priest rapes a child and the child tells people about it (i.e. removing some of the priest's anonymity regarding his actions) the priest is likely to be investigated and thrown in jail. If you know a sexual predator lives next to the school your kid goes to (i.e. he has lost some of his anonymity) you might take additional protective measures that could prevent your children from being assaulted. Whether this is the most common scenario, or whether it is fair for sexual predators to be publicly identified, are completely separate issues. I am simply illustrating a cost.

3) Terrorists - If you were the pilot of a plane and knew that some of your passengers were members of an extremist group that had plotted to destroy airlines in the past (i.e. some of the passengers had lost some of their anonymity) you would probably kick them off your plane. Whether or not this relates to 9/11 is not the point, this is simply an example of a cost of anonymity.

As for your last point: I never said the costs of anonymity outweigh the benefits, I simply showed that there are costs.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#49
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know where to begin with telling you everything that is wrong with all that you just said. Instead of initially refuting them one-by-one, which only creates an argument on your terms, let me set the tone of an argument on my terms. You present a strawman's argument instead of valid points worthy of serious debate in regards to the original statement. You make a weak, passing reference to anonymity being…

Let me clarify. 1) Muggings - If you get mugged by someone you know, it's very easy to find them and punish them. It's no coincidence that muggings tend to happen in big cities where the chances of a mugger attacking someone they know is very low (anonymity). 2) Sexual predator - If a priest rapes a child and the child tells people about it (i.e. removing some of the priest's anonymity regarding his actions) the prie…

Intriguingly, without anonymity there is no real reason to prevent predators from living next to elementary schools nor interacting publicly with children.

Everyone around them would know their history, and name then therefore watch them to a close degree. As it is now, we simply try to prevent convicted pedophiles from being near unsuspecting children and parents.

---

With a terrorist, the argument is the same. If one knows that party A is a known terrorist, and has thoroughly checked them out then why not allow them to board a plan. 100% security isn't demanded---if it were, then we'd simply lock up every known terrorists before they committed any additional overt acts, then never release them.

---

Of all your cases, the mugging is the only one that makes sense because it refers to a lack of anonymity deterring a potential criminal rather than it being used as advanced warning for the potential victim.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#50
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to bet that's AI-Complete.

i think even a modest attempt would work; besides it's usually the newcomers who troll in a community

As somebody who worked on a social networking website for high schoolers back in the day, I can say with authority that trolling never stops in that age range. We quickly gave up the profanity filter arms race as we saw more and more obscure uses of unicode.
Post reply on HN